Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/525/2026 of Busanaboina Lakshmi Perantallu, Vs Nandigama Adi Lakshmi, on 19 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. BUSANABOINA LAKSHMI PERANTALLU,, W/O RAM BABU, HINDU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D NO. 1 SEETHANNAPALLI VILLAGE,
APHC010066722026
IN TH
FRIDAY, T
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
CIVIL R
Between:
1. BUSANABOINA LA
AGED ABOUT 41 Y
SEETHANNAPALLI
DISTRICT.
1. NANDIGAMA ADI
AGED ABOUT 72 Y
MUSUNURU MAND
2. SURAPANENI VEN
AGED ABOUT 55
MANDAL, ELURU D
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased to Set aside
E.A.No.31/2025 IN E.P
learned court of Senior
District and Pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in sup
grant stay all further
pending on the file of t
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUAR
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
REVISION PETITION NO: 525/2026
AKSHMI PERANTALLU,, W/O RAM
YEARS, RESIDENT OF D NO. 1-54,
I VILLAGE, KAIKALURU MANDAL
AND
LAKSHMI, W/O PURNACHANDRA
YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-79/1, GOPAVAR
DAL, PRESENTLY ELURU DISTRICT
NKATA NAGA MANI, W/O VIJAY KU
YEARS, R/O MARLAPALEM VILLA
DISTRICT.
...RES
le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High the docket order dated 05.02.20
P.No.01 /2025 IN O.S.NO.59/2018 on
Civil Judge (Senior Division) At Ka
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court ma proceedings in E.P.No.1/2025 in the Senior Civil Judge (Senior Divis DESH
RY
DRANATH ROY
BABU, HINDU
DODDIPATIA,
L, KRISHNA
...PETITIONER
RAO, HINDU,
RAM VILLAGE,
T.
UMAR, HINDU,
AGE, CHATRAI
SPONDENT(S):
aying that in the
Court may be
026 passed in
n the file of the
aikaluru, Krishna
mstances stated
ay be pleased to
O.S.No.59/2018
sion), Kaikaluru,
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.525 of 2026
including but not limited to execution of delivery warrant, break-open of doors, forcible eviction, redelivery of possession or any coercive steps whatsoever, pending the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.T ARUNACHALAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.525 of 2026
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This revision is preferred against the order dated 05.02.2026 passed in E.A.No.31 of 2025 in E.P.No.01 of 2025 in O.S.No.59 of 2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaikaluru.
3. The petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in the execution proceedings before the executing Court. A decree dated 14.10.2024 against her was passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.59 of 2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaikaluru, to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property. As she did not obey the decree, the decree holder has filed the execution petition for delivery of the property through Court. The executing Court has ordered for delivery of the property by breaking open the lock of the E.P. schedule property.
4. The said order is now challenged only on the ground that the petitioner intends to file a second appeal and without giving sufficient time that the delivery is ordered by the executing Court. The said ground is not a valid ground to entertain this revision. No valid ground is emanating from the record to find fault with the impugned order of the executing Court.
5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision. If the petitioner intends to prefer second appeal, nothing prevents her from approaching the Court and to obtain stay by the second appellate Court. As there is no stay, she cannot seek stay of the said proceedings in this revision and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 20.02.2026 MDP